Falsification of Russian history. Secrets of History

There are many blank spots in the history of our country. The lack of a sufficient number of reliable sources gives rise to not only speculation, but also outright falsification. Some of them turned out to be very tenacious.

Older than usual

According to the official version, statehood came to Rus' in 862, when the Finno-Ugric and Slavic tribes called for the Varangian Rurik to reign over them. But the problem is that the theory, known to us from school, was taken from The Tale of Bygone Years, and the reliability of the information contained in it is called into question by modern science.
Meanwhile, there are many facts confirming that there was a state in Rus' before the calling of the Varangians. Thus, in Byzantine sources, when describing the life of the Rus, obvious signs of their state structure were reflected: developed writing, hierarchy of the nobility, administrative division of lands. Petty princes, over whom the “kings” stood, are also mentioned.
Data from numerous excavations presented by the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences indicate that where the Central Russian Plain is now located, even before the advent of the new era, life was seething. The famous Russian archaeologist and anthropologist Tatyana Alekseeva found sufficient evidence that on the territory of modern central Russia in the period from the 6th to the 2nd millennium BC. e. there was a flourishing of large proto-cities.

Ukraine-Rus

Ukrainian historian Mikhail Grushevsky created one of the most famous falsifications on which modern Ukrainian historiography relies. In his works, he denies the existence of a single ancient Russian ethnic group, but speaks of the parallel history of two nationalities: “Ukrainian-Russian” and “Great Russian”. According to Grushevsky’s theory, the Kiev state is a state of “Russian-Ukrainian” nationality, and the Vladimir-Suzdal state is “Great Russian”.
Already during the Civil War, Grushevsky’s scientific views were subject to serious criticism from his colleagues. One of the most prominent critics of his “Ukraine-Rus” concept was the historian and publicist Andrei Storozhenko, who viewed this approach as an attempt to put the political goals of Ukrainian separatism into historical form.
An influential Kiev public figure and publicist, Boris Yuzefovich, having familiarized himself with Grushevsky’s works, called him a “scientist-liar,” hinting that all of his writing activities were connected with the desire to take the place of a professor in the department of Russian history at Kyiv University.

"Veles's book"

In 1950, emigrants Yuri Mirolyubov and Alexander Kur in San Francisco published the “Veles Book” for the first time. According to Mirolyubov’s stories, he copied the text of the “Veles Book” from wooden tablets lost during the war, created around the 9th century.
However, very soon the falsity of the printed document was established. Thus, the photographs of the tablets presented by Mirolyubov and Kur were actually made from specially prepared paper.
Philologist Natalya Shalygina says: rich factual material convincingly proves that the “Veles Book” is a complete historical fake both from the point of view of linguistic and philological analysis, and from the point of view of the historical inconsistency of the version of its acquisition.
In particular, it became known that in response to arguments from scientific criticism, the authors of the forgery made changes and additions to the already published material in order to give it greater credibility.

Testament of Peter the Great

This tendentious falsification first appeared in French in 1812. According to the drafters of the document, it was based on a strategic plan of action for the successors of Peter the Great for many centuries with the goal of establishing world domination by Russia; the goal was “to get as close as possible to Constantinople and the Indies.”
Historians have come to the conclusion that the main provisions of the Testament were formulated in October 1797 by a Polish emigrant, General Sokolnitsky, close to Napoleon. The abundance of errors and absurdities in the text suggests that the author of the document was not familiar with the foreign policy of Peter I. It has also been established that the Testament was originally intended not for propaganda purposes, but for internal use.

Unnecessary Alaska

Russia's sale of its overseas territory to the United States is explained simply in history books: maintaining Alaska was becoming more and more expensive, since the costs of providing it far exceeded the income from its economic use. There was another reason for selling Alaska - to improve relations with the United States.
Historian Ivan Mironov says that there are a lot of documents that refute the official version. The story related to the sale of Alaska is very reminiscent of contemporary events in terms of corruption scandals, kickbacks and the wasting of budgetary and public funds by a handful of oligarchs and politicians.
Work on the sale of the American colony began during the reign of Nicholas I. In addition to the sale of Alaska, the government’s plans included the intention to get rid of the Aleutian and Kuril Islands, of course, for money. The main lobbyist for the 1867 deal was Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, the brother of Emperor Alexander II, and his accomplices included a number of influential persons, including the head of the Foreign Ministry, Alexander Gorchakov.

Rasputin's personality

In the memoirs of his contemporaries, Grigory Rasputin often appeared as an odious person. He was accused of a host of sins - drunkenness, debauchery, sectarianism, espionage for Germany, and interference in domestic politics. However, even the special commissions that investigated the Rasputin case did not find anything incriminating.
What’s interesting is that Rasputin’s accusers, in particular the archpriest Georgy Shavelsky, admitted in their memoirs that they themselves did not know the elder personally or saw him several times, and all the scandalous stories they described were based solely on a retelling of what they had once heard somewhere.
Doctor of Philology Tatyana Mironova says that the analysis of evidence and memories of those days tells of methods of banal and blatant manipulation of public opinion through falsifications and provocations in the media.
And there was some substitution, the scientist continues. The outrages attributed to Grigory Rasputin were often the clownery of doubles, organized by scoundrels for selfish purposes. So, according to Mironova, it was the same with the scandalous story that happened in the Moscow restaurant “Yar”. The investigation then showed that Rasputin was not in Moscow at that moment.

Tragedy in Katyn

The massacre of captured Polish army officers, carried out in the spring of 1940, has long been attributed to Germany. After the liberation of Smolensk by Soviet troops, a special commission was created, which, after conducting its own investigation, concluded that Polish citizens were shot in Katyn by German occupation forces.

However, as evidenced by documents published in 1992, the executions of Poles were carried out by decision of the NKVD of the USSR in accordance with the resolution of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of March 5, 1940. According to published data, a total of 21,857 people were shot; in addition to the military, there were mobilized Polish doctors, engineers, lawyers, and journalists.

Vladimir Putin, in the status of Prime Minister and President of the Russian Federation, has repeatedly voiced the opinion that the Katyn execution was a crime of the Stalinist regime and it was caused, first of all, by Stalin’s revenge for the defeat in the Soviet-Polish War of 1920. In 2011, Russian officials announced their readiness to consider the issue of rehabilitation of victims of the shooting.

"New Chronology"

There are many falsifications in historiography - events, documents, personalities - but one of them clearly stands out. This is the famous theory of mathematician Anatoly Fomenko, according to which the entire previous history is declared false. The researcher believes that traditional history is biased, tendentious and is designed to serve one or another political system.
Official science, of course, calls Fomenko’s views pseudoscientific and, in turn, calls his historical concept falsification. In particular, Fomenko’s statement that the entire history of antiquity was falsified during the Renaissance, in their opinion, is devoid of not only scientific, but also common sense.
According to scientists, even with a strong desire, it is impossible to rewrite such a voluminous layer of history. Moreover, the methodology that Fomenko uses in his “New Chronology” is taken from another science - mathematics - and its use for analyzing history is incorrect. And Fomenko’s obsessive desire to combine all ancient Russian rulers with the names of Mongol khans makes historians smile.
What historians agree with is Fomenko’s statement that his “New Chronology” is a powerful ideological weapon. In addition, many believe that the main goal of a pseudoscientist is commercial success. Historian Sergei Bushuev sees a serious danger in such scientific fiction, since its popularity may soon displace the real history of the country from the consciousness of society and our descendants.

Vadim Rostov

Falsification of Russian history

1. THE BEGINNING OF FICTION

The falsification of Russian history on a full scale occurred during the reign of Catherine II at the very end of the 18th century. The Empress personally edited the “History of Russia” she compiled, editing historical documents, giving orders for the destruction of some documents and for the writing of forgeries. The need for global falsification of history at this particular time was determined by the seizure of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Western Rus' (Ukraine) during the divisions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Among the political tasks were: 1) to somehow justify the acquisition of these completely foreign territories for Russia; 2) to suppress the national liberation struggle of Belarusians and Ukrainians - invent a myth that they allegedly always dreamed of being under Russian rule; 3) within the framework of this myth, another myth should have been created - that the Muscovites are Slavs and Russia, and not the Finnish population of Finnish Muscovy; 4) to cover up the implementation of these tasks, a massive revision of all chronicles and historical documents in the occupied territories should have been carried out with the aim of correcting or destroying them.

To achieve these political goals, it was necessary to solve specific problems of falsifying history:

1) create a myth that Kievan Rus, with the arrival of the Tatars, suddenly begins to consider as Russia (and even the Center of Rus'!) the country of Moksel (Moksha), located in the Horde and 1000 kilometers from Rus', inhabited by Finnish tribes and before that not considered Russia by anyone;

2) create a myth about the existence of “Suzdal Rus'”, although no one knew about its existence before Catherine II;

3) create a myth that Moscow was founded with the participation of the Kyiv princes, although before Catherine II all historians unanimously believed that it was founded at the behest of the Horde Khan after 1257 (then the Tatar-Mongol Empire carried out a census of all settlements and the entire population of the region to tighten taxation, and Moscow was not yet there);

4) create a myth that Muscovy is Rus', and Muscovites are not Finns, but Slavs;

5) create a myth about some kind of “yoke of the Horde,” although before this all historians believed that Muscovy was a reliable stronghold of the Horde in the fight against Russia for three centuries, and then, under Ivan the Terrible, seized power in the Horde;

6) create a myth that Dmitry Donskoy fought not for the Horde, but against the Horde.

Ukrainian historian Vladimir Belinsky in his book “Country of Moksel” notes:

“It was Catherine II, a European-educated person, who arrived in the Russian Empire and eventually gained access to archival primary sources, who was horrified when she noticed that the entire history of the state was based on verbal epic mythology and had no evidentiary logic. The history of the state was based on the false research of Ivan the Terrible and was in the chaos of lack of evidence and mutually exclusive contradictions.

Was it possible to consider seriously the assertion of the Moscow Rurikovichs that Kievan Rus belonged to Muscovy on the grounds that the Moscow prince came from the Kievan Rurikovich dynasty? By that time, there was more than one dynasty in Europe, whose representatives were of the same faith, ruled in different countries, but did not encroach on foreign countries on this basis alone. And then the Empress zealously set to work.

One should not think that Catherine II, out of simple selflessness, began to “write and organize” Russian history. Everything was done not without the greatest intention. Indeed, in that long line of Moscow, and later Russian, Princes, Tsars and Emperors, Catherine II herself should have taken one of the most honorable places. And the more majestic and noble that row turned out to be, the more majestic she looked in it - the German princess. She did not allow the thought that in the royal family she could end up among the TATAR-MONGOLIAN ordinary nobility. It was a nightmare! For a European-educated person of that time, this could not have been allowed even in a dream.”

On December 4, 1783, Catherine II, by her Decree, ordered the creation of a “Commission for compiling notes on ancient history, mainly of Russia” under the command and supervision of Count A.P. Shuvalov." (V.O. Klyuchevsky "Historical Portraits", p. 564.) Here is how the Decree was implemented in practice: "Appoint... up to 10 people who, with their combined efforts, would compile useful notes on ancient history, mainly relating to Russia, making brief extracts from ancient Russian chronicles and foreign writers according to a rather unique plan known to [Catherine II]. These scholars constitute the "assembly"; but Shuvalov chooses them, preferring “diligence and accuracy over wit” when choosing, and presents them to the empress.”

Gerard Friedrich Miller, in the person of the so-called “Miller's historical department,” became the “head” of the “composition of Russian history” at the behest of Catherine II, since the academician himself passed away in 1783. But it was Miller who had a decisive influence on “the writing of Russian history.” Previously, he searched for “historical materials” in the Volga region and in Siberia, that is, he seized materials relating to the Tatar-Mongol past of Muscovy (1238-1598). In 1792, "Catherine's History" was published. Since then, it was strictly forbidden to introduce anything else into the narrative framework of the history of the Russian Empire.

Member of the Commission Alexander Vasilyevich Khrapovitsky (1749-1801), in 1782-1793 State Secretary of Empress Catherine II, in his memoirs (which went through repeated royal and church censorship and published in 1862, republished in 1990 in Moscow) - openly writes, that Catherine II personally ruled a new “version of history.” Including the compilation of the genealogy of the Russian Grand Dukes. At the same time, she argued that it is necessary to follow not historical facts (supposedly “confusing”), but “the order we need,” “Russian needs.”

The phrases of Catherine II quoted in Khrapovitsky’s memoirs are interesting. He recorded her direct instructions to show the enormous power of the Tatars and the reason for their victories in the absence of strong monarchical power (Catherine ordered at least 70 specific principalities to be brought to show the “fragmentation of Russia”). Including in the notes “about the Tatars and their strength during the invasion of Russia”, the empress already replaces the Suzdal land with the concept “Russia”. The Empress especially instructs Khrapovitsky to create a myth that the Russians are supposedly Slavs, for which he “found papers that, while living in the Hermitage, were written about the antiquity of the Slavs, with research into the primitive people.”

Such typical moments in the memoirs are funny: “I showed the Sit River, in the Yaroslavl province. It flows into the Mologa, and the Mologa into the Volga. In the City, Prince Vladimir Yuryevich Ryazansky was killed by the Tatars. [Catherine II] thought that he crossed the Volga much lower, to attack the Tatars; but the Sit River shows that Vladimir fled to Tver. They are not very happy with this discovery for the history being written." This is how the prince’s flight from the Tatars turns into an “attack against the Tatars,” because “they are not very happy with this discovery.”

And from such thousands of small (and often large) falsifications, a completely different, fictitious story is created. It is significant that Khrapovitsky says about it in this quotation: “for the history being composed” - which is absolutely true, since this history of Russia was precisely COMPOSED by the Commission under the supervision of the empress.

2.“REFINING THE HISTORY”

Historian Vladimir Belinsky writes that being well-educated and comprehensively developed at that time, Catherine II understood where the history of the Empire did not fit together. Reading the ancient chronicles of Kievan Rus, she saw what immediately caught the European’s eye - the unproven and arrogant transfer of the right of heritage from the Grand Duchy of Kyiv to the “Moksel” or Suzdal land, and subsequently the arbitrary transfer of this “right” to Muscovy. For a European educated person, this is nonsense!

At one time, England also laid claim to France. However, by the end of the 18th century, the English encroachment on the French throne had turned into either a European joke or a farce. And Catherine II knew about this. She understood that if such a gap caught her eye, then later serious European researchers would simply reject the unfounded claims of the Muscovites about their “hereditary right” to the history and land of Kievan Rus. Indeed, on part of the land of Kievan Rus, even during the time of Catherine II, lived the same people of Rusyn-Ukrainians, still not subject to the Russian Empire, who were completely different from the Muscovites.

It was precisely that period in the history of the Great Russians (the second half of the 12th-13th centuries) that was subject to radical “strengthening”. The history of the subsequent period required “the usual revision.” The Empress acted very cunningly and cleverly. She did not touch the history of Kievan Rus, which was dangerous. The history of Kievan Rus by that time was recorded not only in the chronicles stored in the archives of Catherine II, but also in the chronicles: Lithuanian, Polish, Swedish, Hungarian, Greek, Turkic, Arab, etc. The “Zaleshan” principalities, that is, the future Muscovy, were initially created out of connection with European culture and out of contact with peoples who, by the end of the 12th and in the first half of the 13th century, could record its concretized history.

The Russian Empire did everything possible to either destroy the peoples of the Volga region and Siberia, or russify them and force them into Christianity. And Volga Bulgaria was burned, its madrassas and mosques were destroyed to the ground, all cultural values ​​and chronicles were stolen and taken to Muscovy. That is, everything that we know today about the origin of the Suzdal principalities and Muscovy was “invented” and presented to us by “paid employees” of the Empire - the day laborers of Catherine II and their followers. All of them “composed mainly stories...

Public opinion polls conducted by VTsIOM in the 1990s showed that during this period, collective ideas about the past occupied an increasingly significant place in the identity of Russians. At the same time, such a component as “antiquity, antiquity” was of greatest importance, firstly, for people under 40 years of age with a high level of education, and secondly, for those who were oriented towards democracy and reforms. This was also matched by an exaggerated craving for the “small homeland,” which was far ahead in its importance in the self-awareness of Russians of such indicators as “our land” and “the state in which I live.”

Obviously, many people were frightened by the bloodthirsty image of Bolshevik Russia painted for several years by the media. In the national republics, the image of imperial Russia, which had its own crimes on its record, was even less attractive, and much was written about them in the 1990s, for example, in Tatarstan, Bashkortostan and the republics of the North Caucasus. In such a situation, it seemed quite natural for many people to want to distance themselves from all these crimes and injustices. This goal can be achieved in two ways: firstly, by appealing to a more ancient past, which was not perceived so painfully and which could be given a heroic appearance, and secondly, by focusing on the “small homeland”, which made it possible to avoid direct identification with the activities of the Russian state . The first led to the creation of romanticized, idealized images of antiquity, and the second led to the flourishing of local history.

The idea of ​​the importance of school history education in the process of legitimizing state power now seems trivial. At the same time, without clarifying the features of the ideological landscape of Ukraine, the place of school textbooks in the structure of the ideological market and the definition of concepts, the topic of the image of Russia in Ukrainian school history textbooks turns into only a set of grievances, mutual accusations of falsification, ingratitude, betrayal, separatism, chauvinism, and thus loses all practical significance. However, in order not to avoid the stated problem, we can only outline certain initial positions without discussing them in detail. Are school history textbooks a segment of the ideological market? Is the state a monopolist in this market? How effective is this monopoly, if it exists? What are the goals and objectives of coding the historical consciousness of schoolchildren? What are the similarities and what are the differences in the forms and methods of conquering the ideological market by the ruling circles in the USSR and in independent Ukraine? Is the current state of affairs compatible with the proclaimed democratic values? If we are talking about the image of Russia, then which Russia are we talking about - the Moscow State, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, the RSFSR or the current Russian Federation? Is it possible to identify the modern Russian Federation as Russia without Ukraine and outside Ukraine?

There is an opinion that the history of Russia and Russians was deliberately distorted.

Why was the history of Russia written in the 17th century by the Germans, and the greatest Russian academician and historian Lomonosov was sentenced to death? And who was interested in the theft of Mikhail Lomonosov’s scientific library and the destruction of his numerous manuscripts?

Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov fell into disgrace because of his disagreements with German scientists who formed the backbone of the Academy of Sciences in the 18th century. Under Empress Anna Ioannovna, a stream of foreigners poured into Russia. Starting from 1725, when the Russian Academy was created, and until 1841, the foundation of Russian history was remade by the following “benefactors” of the Russian people who arrived from Europe and spoke little Russian, but quickly became experts in Russian history.

Recently, the “Russian theme” has become very relevant, actively used in the political sphere. The press and television are full of speeches on this topic, usually muddy and contradictory. Some say that the Russian people do not exist at all, who consider only Orthodox Christians to be Russians, who include in this concept everyone who speaks Russian, etc. Meanwhile, science has already given a completely definite answer to this question. The scientific data below is a terrible secret. Formally, this data is not classified, since it was obtained by American scientists outside the field of defense research, and was even published in some places, but the conspiracy of silence organized around it is unprecedented. The atomic project at its initial stage cannot even be compared, then some things still leaked into the press, and in this case, nothing at all.

What is this terrible secret, the mention of which is a worldwide taboo?

A number of prominent scientists in Russia and abroad question the generally accepted version of the history of the world.

In this book you will become acquainted with numerous factual materials that reveal a striking picture - it turns out that most of the discoveries in the field of archeology and geology, which indicate that man did not descend from apes at all, and has been on Earth for a very long time, were hushed up and hidden from the public. The version of the origin of man from ape was based on fabricated evidence, which, despite this, was exhibited in the largest museums in the world for decades.

Upon a thorough study of the facts and evidence of the use of high technology in the creation of the pyramids, it becomes obvious that these ancient monuments were not created as history suggests. And, most likely, they were created, at least with the participation of other Races - just as Traditions and Legends say. The studied similarities in methods suggest that in South America, Egypt, the Middle East and India, they were built by representatives of the same culture. Once upon a time, apparently, it was a huge Country - the same Babylon, which is equally mentioned in the Bible and ... the Bonpo tradition!

In the past, presumably - during the Renaissance in the West and during the Great Troubles in Russia, the largest forgery in the history of mankind took place. The previous history of the world was withdrawn and destroyed and a new, false picture was compiled, which placed people in the narrow framework of ignorance both in relation to their own nature and in the knowledge of their place in the Universe.

Exactly four hundred and thirty years ago, the greatest battle of Christian civilization took place, which determined the future of the Eurasian continent, if not the entire planet, for many, many centuries to come. Almost 200 thousand people fought in a bloody six-day battle, with their courage and dedication proving the right to exist for many peoples at once. More than 100 thousand people paid with their lives to resolve this dispute, and it is only thanks to the victory of our ancestors that we now live in the world that we are accustomed to seeing around us. In this battle, not just the fate of Rus' and the countries of Europe was decided - it was about the fate of the entire European civilization. But ask any educated person: what does he know about the battle that took place in 1572? And practically no one except professional historians will be able to answer you a word. Why? Because this victory was won by the “wrong” ruler, the “wrong” army and the “wrong” people. Four centuries have already passed since this victory was simply prohibited.

While independently studying northern languages, I caught one characteristic pattern that eludes anyone who is still at the very beginning of the path of studying northern languages: from edition to edition, words with a Russian root base are gradually removed from all dictionaries... and replaced by words with a Latin root base ... Official linguistics insists that, they say, the Veneti who lived in Scandinavia, who in ancient times formed a single cultural and linguistic community with the Slavs, were closer in language to the Latins. This may be partly true, I don’t dare to argue with the luminaries of linguistics. But the fact that in the modern Newspeak of the Norwegian language (nyno(r)shk), composed of hundreds of local dialects, “Russian” words are carefully removed is a fact... And if this cannot be done for some reason: there is only one argument - these words have not a “Russian” root basis, but… an “Indo-European” one. Or - which is completely out of the ordinary - they (words) in these hundred dialects were somehow borrowed from Russian... Curious, in some way? By word of mouth? If we take into account the very complex geophysical location of this country and the peculiarities of the landscape, then we can assume that the inhabitants who inhabited it a thousand years ago were undisputed innovators in terms of mass communication and... put Russian words into circulation... well, as is done through the same television , Internet or radio, finally.

The state of modern historical science has become especially clear this year - 2012 was declared by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev as the “Year of Russian History.” As of July 15, 2012 (exactly six months have passed) no results of this Year have been presented to the public. Not one of the specialized history institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences has issued either to the Russian people or to the Russian president any work, the results of which in any way shed light on at least some controversial aspects of Russian history.

And there are many such moments. Suffice it to say that we “officially” know nothing from the history of our people, which clearly took place before the 9th – 10th centuries AD. “Official” historical science to this day forces us to teach our children on historical materials formed back in the 18th and 19th centuries. And this despite the fact that such materials were openly concocted by individuals who in those years took an openly criminal position towards Russia. We specifically do not name any historical names here, because this article is intended for historians, who, of course, must independently recognize the characters described in it.

Is history a science? It would seem that the answer is known. Herodotus, who lived in the 5th century BC, is called the father of history. Is Augustine the Blessed considered the founder of Christian philosophy of history?

After the “founding fathers,” thousands and thousands of historians worked diligently for centuries in the fertile field of history. They created both history and philosophy of history, they founded many historical disciplines, identified and substantiated numerous historical periods. In France, already in 1701, academic historians were part of the French Academy of Inscriptions and Beaux-Letters, which had 95 full members, 40 of whom were foreign subjects. History, which became a university discipline in the 19th century, as a science, was and is taught today in many educational institutions all over the world by thousands of specialists, teachers, associate professors and professors. All of them constitute a large and powerful army of official historical science.
And this powerful army cannot and does not want to agree with statements similar to those made by Alexey Kungurov in his article. Meanwhile, criticism of official history and chronology goes back many centuries. It began almost when, in the precise words of A. Kungurov, “...Europeans began to compose their great past...”. It is about this, about the falsification of European history and its chronology, that I would like to tell the reader.

Ilya Glazunov’s programmatic canvas “Eternal Russia,” which crowds of Muscovites and visitors once flocked to see, was originally called “One Hundred Centuries.” The period is counted from the supposed exodus of the ancient Aryans from their ancestral home, which marked the beginning of the collapse of the primary ethnolinguistic community and the emergence of independent peoples and languages ​​(previously the language was common). The symbol of the former Ancestral Home - the polar World Mountain, placed in the upper left corner, opens the visual range of Glazunov's composition.

But is it really a hundred centuries? Or is the long journey and thorny history of the Slavic-Russian tribes and other peoples of the earth not exhausted by ten thousand years? After all, Mikhailo Lomonosov named a completely different date, far beyond the boundaries of the most daring fantasy. Four hundred thousand years (more precisely, 399,000) - this is the result obtained by the Russian genius. And he relied on the calculations of Babylonian astronomers and the testimony of the Egyptians, recorded by ancient historians. It was then that one of the most severe planetary catastrophes in terms of its consequences occurred: according to Lomonosov, the earth’s axis shifted, the location of the poles changed, and ultimately, as described by Plato in the dialogue “Politician,” the Sun, which had previously risen in the west (!), began to rise in the east. According to Herodotus, this happened twice.

In the “Tale of Bygone Years” reconstructed by modern scientists, supposedly belonging to the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, Monk Nestor, the first real date is 852 AD. (or in accordance with the Old Russian chronology - 6360 years “from the Creation of the world”). That year, a powerful Russian fleet appeared at the walls of Constantinople, which was recorded in the Byzantine chronicles, and from there it entered the Russian chronicles. The next, truly significant, date - 862 - is associated with the calling of Rurik and his brothers to reign. It was from that time that it was customary for a long time to count down Russian history: in 1862, the so-called 1000th anniversary of Russia was even celebrated, on the occasion of which an impressive monument was erected in Veliky Novgorod, designed by the sculptor Mikhail Mikeshin, which became almost a symbol of Russian statehood and monarchism.

Generations of Russian people were brought up on textbooks and multi-volume publications on the History of Russia by Schletser, Karamzin, Solovyov, Polyakov, Kostomarov, Ilovaisky, Klyuchevsky, Pokrovsky, Tarle, Likhachev and the like. Since these authors created entire schools and tens of thousands of people repeat the ideological cliches and characteristics of the characters in History that they created, then everything that is written by these Interpreters of History and repeated tens of thousands of times is perceived as the immutable Truth. But this is far from true. An analysis of the works of representatives of this cohort of historians allows us to conclude that many of the facts and assessments presented by these “interpreters” of Russian History as Truth have not been proven. V.L. spoke out in a deadly caustic manner about this feature of the works of the “interpreters” of History. Yanin:

“Such assessments, repeated many times in different works, seem to have been justified by someone and not subject to doubt, while a study of the literature on the issue reveals that in reality the evidence never existed” (Yanin, 1990, p. 8).

Almost all of the authors listed were under the strong influence (if not the dictate) of the democratic and Masonic trends fashionable in their times, which were inherently hostile to the Russian Idea. There were other reasons for these authors, which we will consider in this chapter, to distort Russian History. As will be shown below, this “substitution of concepts” and direct falsification of Russian History has been going on for more than 1000 years.

The connection between the times of the History of modern Russia and the Middle Ages was subjected to an even more fierce “attack” by interpreters of History hostile to us. Colossal resources have been spent on breaking this link of time. This “attention” is explained by the special importance of the medieval history of Russia for understanding the current stage of the struggle between Russian and Jewish ideas.

It was in the Middle Ages, after a centuries-long break, that the Jewish idea found its own state, the Khazar Kaganate, which immediately put the Idea into practice, turning the tribes living between the Urals and the Dnieper into powerless slaves. There was no more terrible yoke than this in the history of mankind. For the first time, genocide of the indigenous population was carried out on such a massive scale. Everyone who could even think about resistance (tribal leaders, warriors, priests, kulaks) was completely destroyed. The Jews, who lived in fortified settlements on the territory of the Kaganate under the protection of hired guards and their own national army, were proclaimed a superior race, to which everything was allowed in relation to the Slavs, “subhumans,” “second-class people.”

Already in the very name of the Antiquity era there is a direct allusion to the most important role of the Slavic ethnos in those distant times, for “Antiquity” is difficult to translate otherwise than: “the era of the Ants.” But the Antas, according to most ancient and modern historians, are Slavs. Perhaps the name given to the era after the works of ancient art and crafts reflects the fact that throughout the then Mediterranean, slaves were artisans, and most of the slaves were Slavs (Antes). Unfortunately, this is no more than a hint, although regardless of this assumption, Yegor Klassen provides many facts indicating the wide participation of the Slavic ethnic group in the formation of ancient culture. In particular, he cited dozens of inscriptions on ancient tombstones and sculptures (6th century BC – 5th century AD) in languages ​​“unknown” to Europeans. It turned out that these were inscriptions made in the ancient Slavic language in Latin letters. And now we write our return addresses in Russia on letters to Europe in the same way. But modern Historiography, written by professional interpreters of history, conceals a deaf silence about the ancient history of our ancestors, the genesis of the Russian Idea and the Russian people, which took place precisely at this time. We will talk about the reasons for such silence, and even direct falsification of our history, in this chapter.

The Romanov dynasty had “its own interest” in falsifying History.

Most of the most famous historians of that time, listed in the introduction to this chapter (Schletser, Karamzin, Solovyov, Ilovaisky, Kostomarov, Klyuchevskoy) were professionals. their well-being, like that of any professional, directly depended on those in power, who had their own ideas about what the people needed to know and what they should better forget about. Let us remember once again that all these historians “created” and edited Russian History during the reign of the Romanov dynasty.

The story, which describes the events of the twentieth century seventy years ago, claims that World War II began on September 1, 1939 as a result of the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany. What was the reason for choosing this date? The main reason for taking this date as a starting point was the fact that it was then, for the first time since the end of the First World War, that hostilities began again in Europe. Another argument was the elementary convenience of calculating the duration of wartime. If we count the period from the date of entry into Poland until the date of Japan’s surrender, which occurred in early September 1945, then the duration of the Second Imperialist War was limited to six years. However, the start of the countdown to the resumption of armed conflict in Europe does not seem entirely logical. In this case, the Eurocentrism inherent in Soviet historical science comes to the fore.

1. WHO WROTE THE HISTORY OF Rus' AND HOW

On a "tip" nktv1tl

3.2. LIST OF ACADEMIC HISTORIANS OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES IN THE 18th-19th CENTURIES.

In the books “Biblical Rus'” and “Rus-Horde on the pages of biblical books” we published materials indicating the difficult struggle that M.V. Lomonosov began in the field of history with academic historians who were foreigners. Therefore, it is useful to understand how many academician-HISTORIANS in the Russian Academy of Sciences of the 18th-19th centuries were foreigners. Who created the version of the Romanov-Miller story in those years? Foreign or domestic historians?

A study of the list of academicians given in Book 1 reveals the following important facts. EVERY SINGLE ACADEMIC HISTORIAN BEFORE M.V. LOMONOSOV WERE FOREIGNERS. It turns out there were eleven of them. Among them are such “creators of Russian history” already known to us as Gerard Friedrich Miller (later he took the name Fedor Ivanovich in Russia, p.5) and Bayer Gottlieb or Theophilus Siegfried. Thus, during the first eighteen years of the existence of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian history was written EXCLUSIVELY BY FOREIGN ACADEMICS. There were quite a lot of them, namely eleven. It was they who laid the false foundations of “Russian history.” Only in 1742 was M.V. Lomonosov elected academician, book 1, p. 14. The first Russian academician, who was not only a natural scientist, but also a historian. Once inside the Academy, he apparently quickly figured out what was happening. And then an irreconcilable struggle broke out between him and foreign academicians for the correct coverage of Russian history. The resistance provided to M.V. Lomonosov was united and fierce. For details of this confrontation, see our books “Biblical Rus'” and “Rus-Horde on the pages of biblical books.” Now we will sequentially list ALL ACADEMIC HISTORIANS of the Russian Academy of Sciences, both foreign and domestic, starting from its foundation in 1724 until 1918. (As above, we follow the reference book, book 1, where for each academician his scientific specialty is indicated.) We also give the year of election.

1) Kohl Johann Peter, 1725,
2) Miller or Muller Fedor Ivanovich or Gerard Friedrich (Mu"ller Gerard
Friedrich), 1725,
3) Bayer Gottlieb or Theophil
Siegfried), 1725,
4) Fischer Johann Eberhard, 1732,
5) Cramer Adolf Bernhard, 1732,
6) Lotter Johann Georg, 1733,
7) Le Roy Louis or Pierre-Louis, 1735,
8) Merling Georg (Moerling or Mo"rling Georg), 1736,
9) Brehm or Brehme Johann Friedrich,
1737,
10) Taubert Ivan Ivanovich or Johann Caspar (Taubert Johann Caspar),
1738,
11) Crusius Christian Gottfried, 1740,
*12) Lomonosov Mikhail Vasilievich, 1742,
13) Moderach Karl Friedrich, 1749,
14) Schlozer Auguste Ludwig, 1762,
15) Stritter or Stritter Ivan Mikhailovich or Johann Gotgilf (Stritter
Johann Gotthilf), 1779,
16) Hackmann Johann Friedrich, 1782,
17) Busse Fomich or Johann Heinrich, 1795,
18) Vauvilliers Jean-Francois, 1798,
19) Klaproth Heinrich Julius, 1804,
20) German Karl Fedorovich or Karl Gottlob Melchior or Karl Theodor
(Hermann Karl Gottlob Melchior or Karl Theodore), 1805,
21) Krug Philipp Ivanovich or Johann Philipp, 1805,
22) Lerberg August or Aaron Christian (Lehrberg August Christian),
1807,
23) Koehler Egor Egorovich or Heinrich Karl Ernst (Ko"ler Heinrich Karl
Ernst), 1817,
24) Fran Christian Danilovich or Christian Martin (Fra"hn Christian
Martin), 1817,
*25) Yartsov Januariy Osipovich, 1818,
26) Grafe Fedor Bogdanovich or Christian Friedrich (Gra"fe Christian
Friedrich), 1820,
27) Schmidt Yakov Ivanovich or Isaac Jacob (Schmidt Isaac Jacob), 1829,
28) Shengren Andrey Mikhailovich or Johann Andreas (Sjo"rgen Johann
Andreas), 1829,
29) Charmoy Franz Frantsevich or Francois-Bernard (Charmoy
Francois-Bernard), 1832,
30) Fleischer Heinrich Lebrecht, 1835,
31) Lenz Robert Christian, 1835,
32) Brosset Marie Ivanovich or Marie-Felicite (Brosset Marie-Felicite"),
1836,
*33) Ustryalov Nikolay Gerasimovich, 1837,
34) Dorn Boris Andreevich or Johann Albrecht Bernhard (Dorn Johann
Albrecht Bernhard), 1839.

Next, the turning point elections of 1841 take place, starting from which domestic academic historians finally began to appear in noticeable numbers (which is also not undeniable, because we know how “domestic” these historians were in Russia, whose origins still need to be verified and as we know, the ears of foreigners are visible everywhere where important events take place concerning such “eternal values” as money, power and disinformation. And no matter how hard “domestic historians” try, the history of Rus' is still written according to the script of foreigners, where there is no place for true history and truth. (approx. Russian)) (but it was already too late):

*35) Arsenyev Konstantin Ivanovich, 1841,
*36) Berednikov Yakov Ivanovich, 1841,
*37) Borisov Ivan Alekseevich (Archbishop Innocent), 1841,
*38) Butkov Petr Grigorievich, 1841,
*39) Kachenovsky Mikhail Trofimovich, 1841,
*40) Pogodin Mikhail Petrovich, 1841,
*41) Stroev Pavel Mikhailovich, 1841,
42) Betlingk Otton or Otto Nikolaevich von (Bo"ehtlingk Otto von),
1842,
43) Kunik Arist Aristovich or Ernst Eduard (Kunik Ernst Eduard), 1844,
*44) Korkunov Mikhail Andreevich, 1847,
*45) Kovalevsky Joseph or Osip Mikhailovich, 1847,
46) Stephanie Ludolph Eduardovich, 1850,
47) Schiefner Anton Antonovich or Franz Anton (Schiefner Franz Anton),
1852,
48) Krehl Ludolf Adolf Christoph Ehrenfeld
Christoph Erenfeld), 1855,
*49) Velyaminov-Zernov Vladimir Vladimirovich, 1858,
50) Sciences August Karlovich or Johann August (Nauk Johann August), 1858,
*51) Pekarsky Petr Petrovich, 1863,
*52) Bychkov Afanasy Fedorovich, 1866,
*53) Soloviev Sergey Mikhailovich, 1872,
*54) Sukhomlinov Mikhail Ivanovich, 1872,
*55) Rosen Viktor Romanovich, 1879,
*56) Kachalov Nikolay Vasilievich, 1883,
*57) Vasilyev Vasily Pavlovich, 1886,
58) Salemann Carl Germanovich or Carl Gustav German (Salemann Carl
Gustav Hermann), 1886,
*59) Dubrovin Nikolai Fedorovich, 1887,
*60) Nikitin Petr Vasilievich, 1888,
*61) Maykov Leonid Nikolaevich, 1889,
*62) Vasilevsky Vasily Grigorievich, 1890,
*63) Bestuzhev-Ryumin Konstantin Nikolaevich, 1890,
*64) Tikhonravov Nikolay Savvich, 1890,
*65) Ernstedt Viktor Karlovich, 1893,
*66) Latyshev Vasily Vasilievich, 1893,
*67) Shakhmatov Alexey Alexandrovich, 1894,
*68) Yanzhul Ivan Ivanovich, 1895,
*60) Kondakov Nikodim Pavlovich, 1898,
*61) Zhdanov Ivan Nikolaevich, 1899,
*62) Lappo-Danilevsky Alexander Sergeevich, 1899,
*63) Lamansky Vladimir Ivanovich, 1900,
*64) Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich, 1900,
*65) Uspensky Fyodor Ivanovich, 1900,
*66) Golubinsky Evgeniy Evstigneevich, 1903,
*67) Dyakonov Mikhail Alexandrovich, 1905,
*68) Dashkevich Nikolai Pavlovich, 1907,
*69) Istrin Vasily Mikhailovich, 1907,
*70) Kotlyarevsky Nestor Alexandrovich, 1909,
*71) Vinogradov Pavel Gavrilovich, 1914,
*72) Ikonnikov Vladimir Stepanovich, 1914,
*73) Perets Vladimir Nikolaevich, 1914,
*74) Kovalevsky Maxim Maksimovich, 1914,
*75) Nikolsky Nikolai Konstantinovich, 1916,
*76) Palmov Ivan Savvich, 1916,
*77) Rostovtsev Mikhail Ivanovich, 1917.

	Shumeiko Igor
Genre:	scientific-historical
	A new book by the famous historian Igor Shumeiko, author of the bestseller “The Second World War. Reboot”, which went through several printings... In this book, the author takes a conceptual approach to the falsification of history. Moreover, he claims that today the struggle against falsifications, for the truth of history, has actually moved into the sphere of interpretations and interpretations of facts. He also examines in detail the various historical insinuations that currently prevail in the Baltic countries, Georgia and other former republics of the USSR, stating that falsification of history has become a conscious approach in the foreign policy of many states.
Edition:	2010

Next comes the post-revolutionary elections of 1918, at which we interrupt this list of academic historians. CONCLUSIONS. Figure 9.51 shows a graph showing what percentage of the academic historians elected in the Russian Academy of Sciences in a given decade were foreigners. The schedule speaks for itself. FOR MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS, IT HAS NEVER deviated FROM 100 PERCENT VALUE. And only in the middle of the 19th century did it begin to fall rapidly, reaching zero by 1900.

For 117 years (more than a century!) in the Russian Academy of Sciences, from its founding in 1724 until 1841, out of THIRTY-FOUR ACADEMIC HISTORIANS, THERE WERE ONLY THREE RUSSIAN ACADEMICIANS. This is M.V. Lomonosov, Ya.O. Yartsov and N.G. Ustryalov, book 1. They are marked in the list with asterisks. ALL THE OTHER THIRTY-ONE ACADEMICS WERE FOREIGNERS. Thus, until the middle of the 19th century, the share of foreign historians in the Russian Academy exceeded NINETY PERCENT!

It turns out that for more than a hundred years, foreigners completely controlled the entire process of writing Russian history. It was the foreigners who uncontrollably decided which old Russian documents should be destroyed, which should be rewritten, which should be preserved, which should be falsified. As we see, domestic historians were rudely thrown out the door, completely removed from domestic archives and primary sources.

And only starting in 1841, something happened, and domestic scientists began to appear in noticeable numbers among academic historians. BUT IT WAS ALREADY LATE (I wonder why it was so “late”, what prevented “domestic academicians” from rewriting history, finally writing in the truth? Apparently this confirms the fact of the presence of foreigners under fictitious names, because foreigners always loved to mimic, so for some reason it’s too late- it turned out (approx. Russian)). False foundation of "Russian history" had already been laid and firmly concreted by their foreign predecessors over the previous HUNDRED YEARS.

The results of the “activities” of foreign historians are well known to us. Today, their followers confidently tell us, for example, that before Peter I there was no navy in Russia. It’s as if Peter FIRST ordered the construction of simple “boats” in Russia, and then ships. Thus, the historians hired by the Romanovs tried to completely wipe out from Russian history the grandiose naval expeditions of the 15th-16th centuries, when, according to our reconstruction, the Russian-Horde and Ottoman-Ataman fleet colonized the American continent. And not only him. At the same time, as we now understand, the Horde troops crossed the ocean not in fragile log dugouts, but on ships with several rows of heavy cannons. See the book "Biblical Rus'". Foreign historians declared the entire Russian history before the 17th century to be the era of the dark cave Middle Ages. This is how we are still taught. Fortunately, many traces of the true history still remain. http://

Forgery of secret documents in the USSR State Archives.

On March 19, 2011, Viktor Ivanovich Ilyukhin died suddenly in his country house in the village of Kratovo before the ambulance arrived.

The chief forensic medical expert who conducted the autopsy in Zhukovsky, near Moscow, said that Ilyukhin died as a result of a large, protracted heart attack, which developed over the last few days and entered a critical phase on the evening of March 19.

“We don’t argue with doctors about the diagnosis, but we are interested in the causes of a heart attack, and not only physiological,” said State Duma Vice-Speaker, First Deputy Chairman of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Central Committee Ivan Melnikov, who heads the independent commission created by the party to investigate the causes of Viktor Ilyukhin’s death. He stressed that finding out all the reasons is “a matter of a longer investigation.” The party leadership previously called Ilyukhin’s death “very strange” and expressed suspicion that its causes “had a political component.”

Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, State Duma deputy Sergei Obukhov said that the leadership of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation will insist on conducting an independent medical examination to establish the cause of the sudden death of V. I. Ilyukhin: “He never complained about his heart, and we consider it strange that he passed away so suddenly.” .

Falsification of history. Counterfeiting of cultural monuments.

Sometimes the process of falsification of historical cultural monuments took place on a state scale, and sometimes it was the work of a small group of people. Some of them were hungry for money, some for fame, and some were fulfilling a specific order. Since the 26th century, a huge number of historical forgeries have been made, and, unfortunately, this process is not completed and continues to this day. We will talk about the most notorious historical falsifications of historical monuments.

Troy and Schliemann's gold is one of the greatest falsifications in history.

Many serious scientists consider Schliemann's discovery of the ruins of Troy to be a banal hoax, and Schliemann himself a world-class fraudster. And in fact, if you manage to visit the ruins of Troy, try to ask the guide one of the questions sounded in the film - you will not get an intelligible answer. For many years, the question of where the legendary Troy was located excited the minds of scientists and adventurers, and simply readers of Homer’s poem. Just look, someone would get to the bottom of the truth that Troy is actually medieval Constantinople. There was only one way to stop these searches - to find some ruins on the banks of the Bosphorus and declare them the ruins of Troy. With the help of Schliemann, this problem was successfully solved. The search for the real Troy stopped for many decades. But gullible tourists flocked to Schliemann’s Troy. Travelers come here from all over the world to see the ruins of the city described by the great Homer. Unfortunately, the falsification of Troy is far from the only case in archeology.

Egypt. The tomb of Tutankhamun is perhaps the largest falsification of history.

Fifty years after the false discovery of Troy, a new sensation will spread around the world, which will eclipse even the deeds of Schliemann. In November 1922, sensational news spread around the world. A grandiose burial was discovered in the Egyptian Valley of the Kings - the tomb of Pharaoh Tutankhamun. The uniqueness of this find lay not only in the richness of the tomb itself. The very figure of the young Tutankhamun was considered mythical. And information about this man was limited to only one or two seals on which his name was written, and even then, without indicating the royal title. Many scientists did not consider Tutankhamun a king at all, at best just a noble man. However, the discovery in November 1922 changed a lot. The man who made this discovery instantly became the No. 1 Egyptologist in the world. It was professional archaeologist Howard Carter. Today, many researchers of Egyptian antiquities suggest that Carter's discovery is not a grand discovery, but a grandiose hoax. For almost 10 years spent in the Valley of the Kings, Howard Carter was not engaged in searching for a tomb, but in falsifying it, because the burial of Pharaoh Tutankhamun looks more like a decoration than a real tomb. There is plenty of evidence for this. Watch the film and a lot will become clear to you.

The Great Wall of China is actually not that ancient.

This unique structure stretches across the whole of China. Its length is more than 6,400 kilometers, its height reaches 7 meters, and its thickness is 3 meters. It is believed that the construction of the wall began in the 3rd century BC and ended in the 17th century AD. This means, according to the historical version accepted today, construction lasted almost 2000 years. History has never known such long-term construction. Everyone is accustomed to this historical version, and few people think about its absurdity. Any construction, especially such a large-scale one, must have a specific practical purpose. Who today would think of starting construction that would last for 2000 years? Of course, no one. Because it's pointless. So, the antiquity of the Chinese Wall is a myth, as is the whole history of China. There is plenty of evidence for this. And the most important historical question is why did the Chinese build this wall for so many years, from whom did they want to protect themselves? Watch the movie and maybe it's good you will find answers to all these questions

In the structure of Russian national identity, its military-historical, patriotic part plays a state-forming role. That is why global significance should be attached to external information and ideological influence on it. Previously, the Soviet media fought back against this, and the wartime generation quickly restored the historical truth for young people. Now this influence is coordinated from abroad, and the details are entrusted to some Russian media, which sometimes justify this trust.

One of the pre-war concepts: the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact unleashed the Second World War and Stalin is to blame for this. They are silent about the fact that the financial rulers of the West, dissatisfied with the results of the First World War - the Rothschilds, Warburgs, Schiffs, Morgans, Duponts, Krupps, Thyssens, did everything to ensure that the governments of Germany, France, England, and the USA were involved in the next redivision of the world. In 1933, Italy, Germany, England, and France signed the Pact of Four, according to which Germany was given the right to arm itself.

The United States fully approved this agreement. Documents related to him have not yet been declassified. Probably also because they revised the Treaty of Versailles and were aimed at reviving German power. The Western powers freed this country from paying reparations and loan debts. This was followed by the Munich Agreement, the seizure of Abyssinia and Albania by Italy, the annexation of Austria to Germany, and the seizure of Czechoslovakia. Hungary and Poland grabbed a piece of Czechoslovakian land for themselves.

Together with Berlin, Warsaw participated in the division of Czechoslovakia, that is, together with Nazi Germany, it began the Second World War. However, now the Polish leadership is presenting their country as a victim of Hitler and Stalin.

The fact that Adolf was brought to power by US intelligence is also hushed up. that the Hitler-Nazi party received financial injections thanks to the efforts of the American resident in Berlin, Ernst Hanfstaengl, a classmate of US President Roosevelt at Harvard University. It was Hanfstaengl who helped Hitler create the Nazi party, taught him how to speak to the masses, and gave him the theses for writing Mein Kampf.

And at this time Stalin did everything possible and impossible so that, from the spring of 1939, Anglo-French-Soviet negotiations were held in Moscow to conclude an equal Triple Treaty that could stop Hitler. But the “partners” tried with all their might to direct Hitler against the USSR, and the USSR against Germany. Just to stay away and survive. Roosevelt was for the same thing. So the future “partners” at that time left the Soviet Union alone with Hitler’s Germany, which they had created. In this situation, Stalin still managed to sign the Non-Aggression Pact between Germany and the USSR on August 23, 1939. He tried to gain time: it was necessary to prepare the country for war. England and France failed negotiations in Moscow and organized a new Munich at the expense of the division of Poland.

On April 6, 1941, Germany launched Operation Punishment without declaring war and bombed Belgrade. On Roosevelt's desk lay Hitler's Directive No. 21 of December 18, 1940 - Plan Barbarossa. Roosevelt was expecting this attack, but did not inform Stalin about it. What if Stalin had done this? And on June 22, it happened - Germany, without declaring war, as if it had not concluded a Non-Aggression Pact, brought down on the USSR the full power of its army, mobilized and armed with all the European countries it had captured.

The goal is to revise history

It is surprising that some Russian historians, philosophers, political scientists, public figures, statesmen, and even diplomats constantly refer to the articles of the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. This is absurd, because the head of the Soviet delegation, Gromyko, did not sign this document on behalf of the USSR - they cannot be concluded separately. In addition, Japan capitulated. What kind of peace treaty with her can we talk about? Then Russia also needs to conclude a peace agreement with capitulated Germany?

Why is the fact of surrender hushed up, as if it doesn’t exist? Consequently, both de facto and de jure references to the 1951 San Francisco Treaty are untenable and illegitimate. Especially for Russian citizens. Any separate agreement is not recognized by international law and is considered as a secret conspiracy, a conspiracy of some states against others, as an untenable international incident.

Another goal of using external special information and ideological influences is to achieve a revision of world history, the results of war and peace, discrediting the Victory of our people, new tension in both domestic and international relations, and the search for formal reasons for restoring the conditions that existed before the beginning of the Second World War, pre-war borders and the pre-war situation in the legal codes.

New concepts necessary for subjects of external special information and ideological influences are also introduced. For example, such as the “Battle of Rzhev”, which should create in the minds of Russians a symbol of a meat grinder - a consequence of the mediocrity of the Soviet command, its disregard for the lives of soldiers.

Contrary to the testimonies of the participants in this battle, the filmmakers demonstratively violate the memory of front-line soldiers. This work of Russian filmmakers would be the envy of Goebbels’s Ministry of Propaganda - he had capable students in Russia. Out of nowhere, money is found to publish such “masterpieces,” but liberals and democrats say that good films are not being created now because there is no funding. And then it was found right away.

The traitor Vlasov is elevated to the rank of national savior, and the exploits of Nikolai Gastello, Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, 28 Panfilov heroes, Alexander Matrosov are called into question in every possible way. The moral and political unity of the Soviet people is also evidenced by the following facts from the biographies of the Victory commanders: Georgy Zhukov - from a family of furriers, Alexander Vasilevsky - the son of a clergyman, staff captain of the tsarist army Nikolai Vatutin - the son of a Voronezh peasant, Leonid Govorov - a former officer of Kolchak’s army, Konstantin Rokossovsky, who suffered during the years of pre-war repression, a favorite of the army and the people, resolutely refused Khrushchev’s request to participate in the defamation of Stalin, for which he was immediately dismissed. Ivan Chernyakhovsky is an orphan, a village shepherd.

Subjects of external special information and ideological influences claim that Stalin destroyed the entire officer corps and therefore there was no one to fight the Germans. Who developed the plans for our victories near Moscow, Stalingrad, from the Kursk Bulge to Berlin, in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Manchuria? German, English, French, American, Japanese generals? In 1943, Soviet industry provided the front with 100 combat aircraft, but now, in peacetime, we cannot receive even 10 aircraft a year.

"Against the falsification of the history of the Second World War", 120 pages, Moscow 1958.

The famous Soviet military leader Marshal of the Soviet Union A.I. Eremenko in his brochure exposes, using factual material, the falsifiers of history - the authors of books about the Second World War, former Nazi generals Guderian, Manstein, Derr, Tippelskirch, Mellenthin and others.
Particular attention is paid to restoring the historical truth about the Battle of Stalingrad, well known to the author. http://

- 15498

The main source by which we can judge the history of Ancient Rus' is considered to be the Radzivilov manuscript: “The Tale of Bygone Years.” The story about the calling of the Varangians to rule in Rus' is taken from it. But can she be trusted? Its copy was brought at the beginning of the 18th century by Peter 1 from Konigsberg, then its original ended up in Russia. It has now been proven that this manuscript is forged. Thus, it is not known for certain what happened in Rus' before the beginning of the 17th century, that is, before the accession to the throne of the Romanov dynasty.

But why did the House of Romanovs need to rewrite our history? Is it not to prove to the Russians that they have been subordinate to the Horde for a long time and are not capable of independence, that their destiny is drunkenness and obedience?

The main source by which we can judge the history of Ancient Rus' is considered to be the Radzivilov manuscript: “The Tale of Bygone Years.” The story about the calling of the Varangians to rule in Rus' is taken from it. But can she be trusted? Its copy was brought at the beginning of the 18th century by Peter 1 from Konigsberg, then its original ended up in Russia. It has now been proven that this manuscript is forged. Thus, it is not known for certain what happened in Rus' before the beginning of the 17th century, that is, before the accession to the throne of the Romanov dynasty. But why did the House of Romanovs need to rewrite our history? Is it not to prove to the Russians that they have been subordinate to the Horde for a long time and are not capable of independence, that their destiny is drunkenness and obedience?

Strange behavior of princes

The classic version of the “Mongol-Tatar invasion of Rus'” has been known to many since school. She looks like this. At the beginning of the 13th century, in the Mongolian steppes, Genghis Khan gathered a huge army of nomads, subject to iron discipline, and planned to conquer the whole world. Having defeated China, Genghis Khan's army rushed to the west, and in 1223 it reached the south of Rus', where it defeated the squads of Russian princes on the Kalka River. In the winter of 1237, the Tatar-Mongols invaded Rus', burned many cities, then invaded Poland, the Czech Republic and reached the shores of the Adriatic Sea, but suddenly turned back because they were afraid to leave devastated, but still dangerous Rus' in their rear. The Tatar-Mongol yoke began in Rus'. The huge Golden Horde had borders from Beijing to the Volga and collected tribute from the Russian princes. The khans gave the Russian princes labels to reign and terrorized the population with atrocities and robberies. Even the official version says that there were many Christians among the Mongols and some Russian princes established very warm relations with the Horde khans. Another oddity: with the help of the Horde troops, some princes remained on the throne. The princes were very close people to the khans. And in some cases, the Russians fought on the side of the Horde. Aren't there a lot of strange things? Is this how the Russians should have treated the invaders? Having strengthened, Rus' began to resist, and in 1380 Dmitry Donskoy defeated the Horde Khan Mamai on the Kulikovo Field, and a century later the troops of Grand Duke Ivan III and the Horde Khan Akhmat met. The opponents camped for a long time on opposite sides of the Ugra River, after which the khan realized that he had no chance, gave the order to retreat and went to the Volga. These events are considered the end of the “Tatar-Mongol yoke.”

Secrets of the disappeared chronicles

When studying the chronicles of the Horde times, scientists had many questions. Why did dozens of chronicles disappear without a trace during the reign of the Romanov dynasty? For example, “The Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land,” according to historians, resembles a document from which everything that would indicate the yoke was carefully removed. They left only fragments telling about a certain “trouble” that befell Rus'. But there is not a word about the “invasion of the Mongols.” There are many more oddities. In the story “about the evil Tatars,” the khan from the Golden Horde orders the execution of a Russian Christian prince... for refusing to worship the “pagan god of the Slavs!” And some chronicles contain amazing phrases, for example: “Well, with God!” - said the khan and, crossing himself, galloped towards the enemy. Why are there suspiciously many Christians among the Tatar-Mongols? And the descriptions of the princes and warriors look unusual: the chronicles claim that most of them were of the Caucasian type, had not narrow, but large gray or blue eyes and light brown hair. Another paradox: why did the Russian princes suddenly surrender in the battle of Kalka “under my word of honor” to a representative of foreigners named Ploskinia, and he... kisses the pectoral cross?! This means that Ploskinya was one of his own, Orthodox and Russian, and also of a noble family! Not to mention the fact that the number of “war horses”, and therefore the soldiers of the Horde army, was initially estimated, with the light hand of historians of the House of Romanov, at three hundred. four hundred thousand. Such a number of horses could neither hide in the copses nor feed themselves in the conditions of a long winter! Over the last century, historians have continually reduced the number of the Mongol army and reached thirty thousand. But such an army could not keep all the peoples from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean in subjection! But it could easily perform the functions of collecting taxes and establishing order, that is, serving as something like a police force.

There was no invasion!

A number of scientists, including academician Anatoly Fomenko, made a sensational conclusion based on a mathematical analysis of the manuscripts: there was no invasion from the territory of modern Mongolia! And there was a civil war in Rus', the princes fought with each other. There were no traces of any representatives of the Mongoloid race who came to Rus'. Yes, there were individual Tatars in the army, but not aliens, but residents of the Volga region, who lived next to the Russians long before the notorious “invasion.” What is commonly called the “Tatar-Mongol invasion” was in fact a struggle of the descendants of Prince Vsevolod “ Big Nest" with their rivals for sole power over Russia. The fact of the war between the princes is generally accepted; unfortunately, Rus' did not unite immediately, and quite strong rulers fought among themselves. But with whom did Dmitry Donskoy fight? In other words, who is Mamai?

Horde - the name of the Russian army

The era of the Golden Horde was distinguished by the fact that, along with secular power, there was a strong military power. There were two rulers: a secular one, called the prince, and a military one, he was called the khan, i.e. "military leader" In the chronicles you can find the following entry: “There were wanderers along with the Tatars, and their governor was so-and-so,” that is, the Horde troops were led by governors! And Brodniks are Russian free warriors, the predecessors of the Cossacks. Authoritative scientists have concluded that the Horde is the name of the Russian regular army (like the “Red Army”). And Tatar-Mongolia is Great Rus' itself. It turns out that it was not the “Mongols,” but the Russians who conquered a vast territory from the Pacific to the Atlantic Ocean and from the Arctic to the Indian. It was our troops who made Europe tremble. Most likely, it was fear of the powerful Russians that became the reason that the Germans rewrote Russian history and turned their national humiliation into ours. By the way, the German word “Ordnung” (“order”) most likely comes from the word “horde.” The word "Mongol" probably comes from the Latin "megalion", that is, "great". Tataria from the word “tartar” (“hell, horror”). And Mongol-Tataria (or “Megalion-Tartaria”) can be translated as “Great Horror.” A few more words about the names. Most people of that time had two names: one in the world, and the other received at baptism or a military nickname. According to the scientists who proposed this version, Prince Yaroslav and his son Alexander Nevsky act under the names of Genghis Khan and Batu. Ancient sources depict Genghis Khan as tall, with a luxurious long beard, and “lynx-like” green-yellow eyes. Note that people of the Mongoloid race do not have a beard at all. The Persian historian of the Horde times, Rashid adDin, writes that in the family of Genghis Khan, children “were mostly born with gray eyes and blond hair.” Genghis Khan, according to scientists, is Prince Yaroslav. He just had a middle name - Genghis with the prefix “khan”, which meant “warlord”. Batu is his son Alexander (Nevsky). In the manuscripts you can find the following phrase: “Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, nicknamed Batu.” By the way, according to the description of his contemporaries, Batu had fair hair, a light beard and light eyes! It turns out that it was the Horde khan who defeated the crusaders on Lake Peipsi! Having studied the chronicles, scientists discovered that Mamai and Akhmat were also noble nobles, who, according to the dynastic ties of the Russian-Tatar families, had the rights to a great reign. Accordingly, “Mamaevo’s Massacre” and “Standing on the Ugra” are episodes of the civil war in Rus', the struggle of princely families for power.

Which Rus' did the Horde go to?

The records do say; "The Horde went to Rus'." But in the 12th-13th centuries, Russia was the name given to a relatively small territory around Kyiv, Chernigov, Kursk, the area near the Ros River, and Seversk land. But Muscovites or, say, Novgorodians were already northern inhabitants who, according to the same ancient chronicles, often “traveled to Rus'” from Novgorod or Vladimir! That is, for example, to Kiev. Therefore, when the Moscow prince was going to go on a campaign against his southern neighbor, this could be called an “invasion of Rus'” by his “horde” (troops). It is not for nothing that on Western European maps for a very long time Russian lands were divided into “Muscovy” (north) and “Russia” (south).

Grand falsification

At the beginning of the 18th century, Peter 1 founded the Russian Academy of Sciences. Over the 120 years of its existence, there have been 33 academic historians in the historical department of the Academy of Sciences. Of these, only three are Russians, including M.V. Lomonosov, the rest are Germans. The history of Ancient Rus' until the beginning of the 17th century was written by the Germans, and some of them did not even know Russian! This fact is well known to professional historians, but they do not make any effort to carefully review what kind of history the Germans wrote. It is known that M.V. Lomonosov wrote the history of Rus' and that he had constant disputes with German academics. After Lomonosov's death, his archives disappeared without a trace. However, his works on the history of Rus' were published, but under the editorship of Miller. Meanwhile, it was Miller who persecuted M.V. Lomonosov during his lifetime! The works of Lomonosov on the history of Rus' published by Miller are falsifications, this was shown by computer analysis. There is little left of Lomonosov in them. As a result, we do not know our history. The Germans of the House of Romanov hammered into our heads that the Russian peasant was good for nothing. That “he doesn’t know how to work, that he’s a drunkard and an eternal slave.